I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

End of "Dover Trap" in sight: HR 2679 passes House

Stop the ACLU reports that HR 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act, passed the House today by the fairly large margin of 244 to 173. This bill would bar attorney fee awards to prevailing plaintiffs in establishment clause lawsuits. If the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law by Bush, the "Dover Trap" will be history. Hopefully that would put some starch into the spines of politicians and public-school officials who are now too easily intimidated by the Darwinists. As I said, I would prefer a fee cap on both establishment clause cases and free-exercise clause cases, but I consider HR 2679 to be much better than nothing.

Action is still pending on S 3696, the companion Senate bill. Your Senator may be contacted here.

My previous comments about HR 2679 are in the following articles:

Answer to ACLU letter opposing S 3696 (HR 2679)

HR 2679 now has Senate companion bill, S 3696

More Ed Brayton lies about HR 2679

Challenge to Ed Brayton and his pals

Hypocritical Ed Brayton still doesn't get it on HR 2679

HR 2679, the bill barring attorney fee awards in establishment clause lawsuits

Is the party almost over for ACLU and AUSCS?

Labels:

14 Comments:

Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Hopefully that would put some starch into the spines of politicians and public-school officials who are now too easily intimidated by the Darwinists. <

We will see if the politicians are too easily intimidated by the religious fanatics. If they are, the clear way around this is abuse of process suits against the public school officials who are wasting the taxpayers' money in an attempt to circumvent the law.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 6:40:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said...
>>>>>> Hopefully that would put some starch into the spines of politicians and public-school officials who are now too easily intimidated by the Darwinists.

We will see if the politicians are too easily intimidated by the religious fanatics. <<<<<<

Yes, VIW, that is one of the reasons why I prefer a cap on fee awards in both establishment clause and free-exercise cases instead of just a ban on fee awards in establishment clause cases. I am glad that you are at last beginning to see the wisdom of my ideas.

I am somewhat worried now about the companion bill in the Senate, S 3696. The vote in the House was largely along partisan lines -- only 6 Republicans voted against HR 2679 and only 26 Democrats voted in favor -- and the Republicans have a relatively small majority in the Senate, 55-45.

>>>>>> If they are, the clear way around this is abuse of process suits against the public school officials who are wasting the taxpayers' money in an attempt to circumvent the law. <<<<<

I have seen different legal definitions of "abuse of process," but none of them have anything to do with wasting taxpayers' money. For example, here is a definition from Findlaw:

the tort of bringing and following through with a civil or criminal action for a purpose known to be different from the purpose for which the action was designed

Another definition concerns the abuse of process service.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 7:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> I am glad that you are at last beginning to see the wisdom of my ideas. <

No. You are not yet beginning to see the idiocy of your ideas.

> I have seen different legal definitions of "abuse of process," but none of them have anything to do with wasting taxpayers' money. <

I think that the entire concept is over your head. If you can't understand the basics of law, how could you be expected to understand abuse of process?

Wasting the taxpayers' money is not the issue. Filing a suit that you know you can't win purely for the purpose of harassment is a good abuse of process case.

Your definition from Findlaw describes this exactly.

You seem to have a great interest in law. It is a shame that you are totally devoid of the ability to understand it.

> Another definition concerns the abuse of process service. <

Quite irrelevant. You have to give up your word search method of research. I can lead you down too many blind alleys.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 8:58:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Wasting the taxpayers' money is not the issue. Filing a suit that you know you can't win purely for the purpose of harassment is a good abuse of process case. <<<<<

You stupid dummox -- why would public school officials file an establishment clause lawsuit against private citizens?

I guess that really would be an "abuse of process," wouldn't it?

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> why would public school officials file an establishment clause lawsuit against private citizens? <

You hopeless halfwit. Who said anything about a lawsuit against private citizens? I suppose you think that it was "implied" based on your wild misinterpretations.

You might as well throw in the towel on this one early. Every post you make only demonstrates that you are clueless about this subject.

I would suggest you ask anyone you can find who can read to just read this thread and explain it to you. So far it could have been written in Chinese and you wouldn't have done much worse.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 6:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Sherry D said...

Voice is right on this Larry. You don't seem to read posts before flying off in random directions to prove that you don't understand them. I would also agree that you seem to be doing your research by using a word search engine and then not really understanding what you find.

You might consider reading everything carefully before attempting to answer posts or use material as a reference. If you are trying to formulate your answer or new post at the same time as you are reading, you will begin to see things in the item being read that is not actually there.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 7:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sherry D is right. Some people can chew gum and walk at the same time. You evidentally cannot.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 7:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Shemp Fafarman said...

Don't insult my brother like that. He can chew gum and walk. Of course he sometimes walks into trees while doing it.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:35:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Shemp,

Stop that. I'll tell Mom.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Bugsmasher said...

Take it easy on him, guys. If you drive him into his hole it will ruin our fun.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 6:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

The asshole has now begun a new hobby. He is vandalizing Wikipedia entries because they do not support his fantasies.

Friday, September 29, 2006 5:41:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Congress has adjourned until the week of November 13th, after which they will have 4 or 5 weeks before they permanently adjourn and any pending bills get discarded. They still have 10 major appropriation bills and several national security bills to deal with in that short time. The Judiciary Committee has about 25 bills scheduled for floor debate, and none of those are S 3696. It looks like this bill will die its usual ignominous death in committee.

Sunday, October 01, 2006 4:36:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>>>The Judiciary Committee has about 25 bills scheduled for floor debate, and none of those are S 3696. It looks like this bill will die its usual ignominous death in committee. <<<<<<

Well, a lot of people predicted that the bills would never get this far. I myself greatly prefer the idea of a cap on fee awards in both establishment clause and free-exercise clause cases. I think that a fee cap would have a much better chance of passing the Senate. Fee caps are not new -- they have been used in the past.

Sunday, October 01, 2006 5:11:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Someone is impersonating me and making me look like a raving lunatic. I insist the they stop immediately.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:57:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home